Decision

Acceptance Decision

Updated 9 April 2024

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

Case Number: TUR1/1390(2024)

9 April 2024

CENTRAL ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1992

SCHEDULE A1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION

The Parties:

University and College Union

and

INTO Exeter University LLP

1. Introduction

1)         The University and College Union (the Union) submitted an application to the CAC on 21 February 2024 that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes by INTO Exeter University LLP (the Employer) in respect of a bargaining unit comprising “Academic Staff (below College Director and Including Pre-Sessional Academic Staff).”  The location of the bargaining unit was given as “Exeter University Campus, University of Exeter, INTO Building, Stocker Road, EX4 4PY.” The application was received by the CAC on 21 February 2024 and the CAC gave both parties notice of receipt of the application by letter of the same date.  The Employer submitted a response to the CAC dated 7 March 2024 which was copied to the Union.

2)         In accordance with section 263 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (the Act), the CAC Chairman established a Panel to deal with the case.  The Panel consisted of Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair, and, as Members, Mr Derek Devereux and Ms Joanna Brown.  The Case Manager appointed to support the Panel was Kate Norgate.

3)         The CAC Panel has extended the acceptance period in this case.  The initial period expired on 6 March 2024.  The acceptance period was extended on two further occasions to allow time for a membership and support check to take place, for the parties to comment on the subsequent report, and for the Panel to consider those comments before arriving at a decision. The final extension ends the acceptance period on 9 April 2024.

2. Issues

4)         The Panel is required by paragraph 15 of Schedule A1 to the Act (the Schedule) to decide whether the Union’s application to the CAC is valid within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9; is made in accordance with paragraphs 11 or 12; is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 33 to 42; and therefore, should be accepted.

3. Summary of the Union’s application

5)         In its application to the CAC the Union stated that it had sent a request letter to the Employer on 5 December 2024.  The Union stated that the Employer had responded to the request on 3 January 2024 by offering to facilitate a meeting with Jackie Robinson, VP People Partnering. The Union said that it had replied on 10 January 2024 setting out dates, but it received no response to this offer from the Employer.  The Union said that it sent a follow-up e-mail to the Employer on 16 January 2024 and 1 February 2024, “reminding of 10-day expectation”, but the Employer did not respond.  A copy of the Union’s request and the Employer’s e-mail of 3 January 2024, along with the Union’s e-mails of 1 and 10 January 2024 were attached to the Union’s application.

6)         When asked whether the Union had made a previous application under the Schedule for statutory recognition for workers in the proposed bargaining unit or a similar unit the Union answered “N/A”. The Union stated that, following receipt of the request for recognition, the Employer had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist the parties.

7)         The Union stated that the total number of workers employed by the Employer was 134. The Union stated that there were between 64 and 75 workers in the proposed bargaining unit, of whom 39 were members of the Union.  The Union offered to send a list of its members to the CAC on a confidential basis.  When asked to provide evidence that the majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were likely to support recognition for collective bargaining, the Union stated it held copies of signed and dated UCU pledges from workers, who represented 85% of the academic workforce at the time of collection.  These pledges were signed between October 2023 and February 2024. The Union said that it considered this information to be special category data (names and trade union membership), and therefore it did not wish to share the content with the Employer.  The Union was however content to share the information with the CAC for verification purposes.    

8)         The Union stated that the reason for selecting its proposed bargaining unit was because the United College Union was the largest Trade Union and Professional Association for academics, lecturers, trainers, researchers and academic-related staff who worked in Further & Higher Education throughout the UK. There was a clear and distinct academic staffing structure in place at INTO Exeter University, that was separate from a professional services and administration structure.  The bargaining unit therefore mapped onto the existing academic structure that was currently in place at INTO Exeter.   The Union said that it had also attached to its application, a copy of its “annotated structure chart sent by INTO UCU reps from internal sources.”

9)         In answer to the question whether the bargaining unit had been agreed with the Employer, the Union said “No”.  The Union said that there was no existing recognition agreement of which it was aware which covered any workers in the bargaining unit.

10)       The Union confirmed that it held a current certificate of independence.   The Union stated that it had copied its application and supporting documents to the Employer on 21 February 2024.  

4. Summary of the Employer’s response to the Union’s application

11)       In its response to the Union’s application the Employer stated that it had received the Union’s written request for recognition on 5 December 2023.  When asked how it had responded to the Union’s request the Employer simply stated, “Response from Teresa Watson.” 

12)       The Employer stated that it had received a copy of the Union’s application form from the Union on 4 March 2024.  The Employer stated that it had not, before receiving a copy of the application form, agreed the bargaining unit with the Union, nor did it agree with the proposed bargaining unit.   The Employer further stated that, “We are also concerned about the potential that the process has been exclusionary with certain members of academic staff being invited to be involved, but not all.”  The Employer also said that it was unclear as to why the process would exclude the Academic Director, which the Employer believed may have been the case in this instance, as well as potentially others including those who were currently members of the Union.  The Employer stated that, following receipt of the Union’s request, it had not proposed that Acas should be requested to assist.   

13)       The Employer stated that it did not agree with the number of workers in the proposed bargaining unit as set out in the Union’s application.  The Employer said that there was no existing agreement for recognition in force covering workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

14)       In answer to the question whether it disagreed with the Union’s estimate of membership in the proposed bargaining unit, the Employer said that it was currently unable to verify the number, and therefore it had concerns on the accuracy of the number claimed by the Union.

15)       When invited to give its reasons if it did not consider that a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit would be likely to support recognition the Employer said that this question was challenging to address when it was unable to verify who and how many individuals were in the bargaining unit.   The Union said that if the unit contained management colleagues and their Line Managers, there was a sufficient risk that some of the workers in the bargaining were not likely to support recognition but may feel compelled to do so.  The Employer said that it would welcome a more open form of voluntary dialogue to discuss any issues of concern in order to help negate this risk and to avoid a potentially exclusionary approach.

16)       The Employer stated that it was not aware of any previous application under the Schedule by the Union in respect of this or a similar bargaining unit, nor had it received any other applications in respect of workers in the proposed bargaining unit.

5. The membership and support check

17)       To assist the determination of two of the admissibility criteria specified in the Schedule, namely, whether 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit are members of the union (paragraph 36(1)(a)) and whether a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit (paragraph 36(1)(b)), the Panel proposed an independent check of the  level of union membership within the proposed bargaining unit and of a petition compiled by the Union.  It was agreed with the parties that the Employer would supply to the Case Manager a list of the names, dates of birth and job titles of workers within the proposed bargaining unit, and that the Union would supply to the Case Manager a list of its paid up members within that unit (including their full names and dates of birth) and a copy of its petition.  It was explicitly agreed with both parties that, to preserve confidentiality, the respective lists and petition would not be copied to the other party and that agreement was confirmed in a letter dated 22 March 2024 from the Case Manager to both parties. 

18)     The information requested from Union was received by the CAC on 18 March 2024, and from the Employer on 20 March 2024.  The Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties.    

19)      The list supplied by the Employer indicated that there were 68 workers in the Union’s proposed bargaining unit.  The list of members supplied by the Union contained 37 names. According to the Case Manager’s report, the number of Union members in the proposed bargaining unit was 35, a membership level of 51.47%. 

20)     The petition supplied by the Union contained 66 names and signatures, of which 58 were in the proposed bargaining unit, a figure that represents 85.29% of the proposed bargaining unit. Of those 58 signatories, 34 were members of the Union (50% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 24 were non-members (35.29% of the proposed bargaining unit).  The Union’s petition comprised of 66 A4 sheets containing 66 names/signatures. Each page was set out as follows:

“PETITION IN SUPPORT OF UNION RECOGNITION

UCU, the University and College Union, is campaigning to give staff at INTO University of Exeter an independent voice at work.

We want INTO University of Exeter to recognise UCU to bargain and negotiate for you, academic staff.  If we are recognised, we can meet with your management regularly to negotiate on your pay, contracts and other terms and conditions.

A union would make you stronger at work.

You have the legal right to union recognition if we can show that enough people want it.  To make an application for legal recognition we have to apply to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), the government body that has the power to award recognition and show them that the majority of staff support our application.

That’s why we need you to sign this this pledge.   This document will be submitted to the CAC to support our application.

Your Employer will never see these signatures.

You do NOT have to be a UCU member to sign and it’s open to ALL academic staff, including part time, sessional and other hourly-paid tutors.

Please support the case for an independent collective voice for staff.

By completing the below details, I support recognition of UCU for collective bargaining on behalf of academic staff at INTO University of Exeter.”

Beneath the proposition the signatory was asked to provide their “NAME”, “JOB TITLE”, “SIGNATURE”, and “DATE SIGNED”.   The dates on the petition ranged between 17 November 2023 and 7 February 2024.

21)       A report of the result of the membership and support check was circulated to the Panel and the parties on 22 March 2024 and the parties were invited to comment on the results of that check by noon on 27 March 2024.

6. Summary of the parties’ comments following the membership and support check

22)       In an e-mail dated 27 March 2024 the Union said that having conferred with the INTO Exeter UCU rep there were some minor discrepancies between the Union’s membership list, the academic staff pledges, and the Employer’s academic staff list.  The Union said that it was however content that with new staff and some leavers, the data represented the Union’s strong support base as claimed by the Union at the beginning of the process.

23)       The Union also informed the Panel that the parties were meeting with Acas for exploratory talks on 3 April 2024 and that it would update the CAC on the outcome of those talks.

24)       In regard to tests set out in paragraph 36 of the Schedule, the Union said that the comparison of the data demonstrated that 51.47% of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union, and that a majority of the proposed bargaining unit (85.29%) support the Union’s recognition at INTO Exeter LLP.

25)       No comments were received from the Employer.   

7. Considerations

26)       In determining whether to accept the application the Panel must decide whether the admissibility and validity provisions referred to in paragraph 4 above are satisfied. The Panel has considered carefully the submissions of both parties and all the evidence in reaching its decision.

27)       The Panel is satisfied that the Union made a valid request to the Employer within the terms of paragraphs 5 to 9 of the Schedule and that its application was made in accordance with paragraph 11. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the application is not rendered inadmissible by any of the provisions in paragraphs 33 to 35 and 37 to 42 of the Schedule.     The remaining issues for the Panel to decide are whether the admissibility criteria contained in paragraph 36(1)(a) and paragraph 36(1)(b) are met.

Paragraph 36(1)(a)

28)       Under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit.  The membership check conducted by the Case Manager (described in paragraphs 17 - 19 above) showed that 51.47% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the Union. As stated in paragraph 18 above, the Panel is satisfied that this check was conducted properly and impartially and in accordance with the agreement reached with the parties. The Panel has therefore decided that members of the union constitute at least 10% of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as required by paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Schedule.

Paragraph 36(1)(b)

29)       Under paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule, an application is not admissible unless the Panel decides that a majority of the workers constituting the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit. For the reasons given in paragraph 28 above the Panel has concluded that the level of union membership within the bargaining unit stands at 51.47%. The Panel considers that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, union membership provides a legitimate indicator of the views of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit as to whether they would be likely to favour recognition of the Union. No such evidence to the contrary was received in this case. The Panel also notes that the support check conducted by the Case Manager showed that 85.29% of workers in the proposed bargaining unit (58 out of 68 workers) had signed a petition in favour of recognition (see paragraph 20 above). Of those who had signed the petition 34 were Union members (50% of the proposed bargaining unit) and 24 were non-members (35.29% of the proposed bargaining unit). On the basis of the evidence before it the Panel has decided, on the balance of probabilities, that a majority of the workers in the proposed bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the Union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit, as required by paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Schedule. 

8. Decision

30)       For the reasons given in paragraphs 26-29 above the Panel’s decision is that the application is accepted by the CAC.

Panel

Mr Rohan Pirani, Panel Chair

Mr Derek Devereux

Ms Joanna Brown

9 April 2024